Quantcast
Sony's Head of 13 Dev Studios Discusses the Future of Playstation

Forums - Sony Discussion - Sony's Head of 13 Dev Studios Discusses the Future of Playstation

AngryLittleAlchemist said:

In theory I like the idea of making games of a higher quality, but I don't like that he hints towards there being less games. If we're only talking about Sony's first party studios, then their output was already pretty bare in the first couple of years of the Playstation 4's life. My biggest worry though is that creating less games but spending more time on them means they potentially have to focus less on niche products, because the longer it takes to make a game the more it costs, and the more it costs the larger its potential demographic has to be. This could lead to less experimentation, less unique products, and less innovation. I'm at a point where I'd rather an interesting game with some flaws than a creatively dull game that's technically and commercially proficient, that's probably why I think The Last Guardian was one of my most memorable Playstation 4 experiences. 

There are however a few positive counter-points to this: 

-The gaming industry is constantly getting bigger from a software sales perspective 

-Games like God of War and Monster Hunter have shown that marketing can play a major factor in the growth of niche franchises (not that they were ever the most niche franchises ... but ... you get it)

-Sony has a new huge studio in Bend Studios

-PixelOpus is able to create a game like Concrete Genie despite being one of Sony's smallest development studios

-Sony gets a lot of benefit out of owning IPs or licenses even if they don't own the studios (Ratchet & Clank, Spider-Man, Until Dawn, etc.) 

-They have continually supported niche efforts in Japan Studios and VR games 

Although to be fair to the last point, it remains to be seen if they will allow Japan Studios to make projects as ambitious as TLG or Gravity Rush again. Supporting niche VR titles comes more from a future proofing perspective I think then one of supporting niche games in general. You have to push an unknown product to make it sell after all, and that's not necessarily true for consoles. 

If we are to be honest though.... sony has pretty much remained constant with their output all generation. Contrary to what most think.

  • 2013 - Killzone, Knack (2)
  • 2014 - Driveclub, Infamous (2)
  • 2015 - BloodBorne, The Order, Until Dawn (3)
  • 2016 - The last Guardian, Uncharted 4 (2)
  • 2017 - GT Sport, Gravity Rush 2, Horizon, Knack 2 (4)
  • 2018 - Detroit, GOW, Spiderman (3)   
I didnt add Remakes, Remasters, PSN only games, Published exclusives (eg NiOH), VR games and the annual MLB games. 
So yeah, sony kinda releases an average of 3 major games a year.
I think what he"s saying is that he would prefer they have only 2 releases a year where each game is selling like 10M copies than have 3 where only one sells like 10M copies and the other two sell like 5M each
And I don think we have any reason to doubt what kinda games sony makes or supports. They have 4 generations of ding that under their belt..... and even stuck with their guns when everyone was saying single player is dead...


Around the Network

Bloodborne, Ratchet and Clank, The Last Guardian, Uncharted 4, Gravity Rush2, Horizon, God of War, Detriot, SOTC, Spiderman, Days Gone

I approve!



Intrinsic said:
AngryLittleAlchemist said:

In theory I like the idea of making games of a higher quality, but I don't like that he hints towards there being less games. If we're only talking about Sony's first party studios, then their output was already pretty bare in the first couple of years of the Playstation 4's life. My biggest worry though is that creating less games but spending more time on them means they potentially have to focus less on niche products, because the longer it takes to make a game the more it costs, and the more it costs the larger its potential demographic has to be. This could lead to less experimentation, less unique products, and less innovation. I'm at a point where I'd rather an interesting game with some flaws than a creatively dull game that's technically and commercially proficient, that's probably why I think The Last Guardian was one of my most memorable Playstation 4 experiences. 

There are however a few positive counter-points to this: 

-The gaming industry is constantly getting bigger from a software sales perspective 

-Games like God of War and Monster Hunter have shown that marketing can play a major factor in the growth of niche franchises (not that they were ever the most niche franchises ... but ... you get it)

-Sony has a new huge studio in Bend Studios

-PixelOpus is able to create a game like Concrete Genie despite being one of Sony's smallest development studios

-Sony gets a lot of benefit out of owning IPs or licenses even if they don't own the studios (Ratchet & Clank, Spider-Man, Until Dawn, etc.) 

-They have continually supported niche efforts in Japan Studios and VR games 

Although to be fair to the last point, it remains to be seen if they will allow Japan Studios to make projects as ambitious as TLG or Gravity Rush again. Supporting niche VR titles comes more from a future proofing perspective I think then one of supporting niche games in general. You have to push an unknown product to make it sell after all, and that's not necessarily true for consoles. 

If we are to be honest though.... sony has pretty much remained constant with their output all generation. Contrary to what most think.

 

  • 2013 - Killzone, Knack (2)
  • 2014 - Driveclub, Infamous (2)
  • 2015 - BloodBorne, The Order, Until Dawn (3)
  • 2016 - The last Guardian, Uncharted 4 (2)
  • 2017 - GT Sport, Gravity Rush 2, Horizon, Knack 2 (4)
  • 2018 - Detroit, GOW, Spiderman (3)   
I didnt add Remakes, Remasters, PSN only games, Published exclusives (eg NiOH), VR games and the annual MLB games. 
So yeah, sony kinda releases an average of 3 major games a year.
I think what he"s saying is that he would prefer they have only 2 releases a year where each game is selling like 10M copies than have 3 where only one sells like 10M copies and the other two sell like 5M each
And I don think we have any reason to doubt what kinda games sony makes or supports. They have 4 generations of ding that under their belt..... and even stuck with their guns when everyone was saying single player is dead...

 

I think he means he's going to delay games like the bolded in order to make them better. The bolded games range from good to great, but they are not system sellers. I think Gravity Rush 2 hasn't even hit 1 million yet. And who the heck decided to buy a PS4 based on Knack? 

Oh and actual PS4 exclusives including remakes/remasters, and 3rd party support, blows most of the competition out of the water. But that's a thread I'll be saving for 2020 when the current gen finally ends. 

Last edited by Cerebralbore101 - on 11 February 2019

Kerotan said:
I disagree that BR is a fad. It's a new game mode here to stay, just like team death match, search and destroy, domination, free for all, capture the flag or conquest.

If only zipper were still around. They could have done an awesome Socom BR.

Regarding PSX this year. They be better off delaying it to spring 2020 to announce the PS5.

I feel Sony see BR like  other MP focused games having enough 3rd party coverage, so allowing their focus to remain on what they are good at first party  SP games.



He wants to curate a library that people will always associate with Quality. A true cinematic experience where gaming transcends into true art.



Black Women Are The Most Beautiful Women On The Planet.

"In video game terms, RPGs are games that involve a form of separate battles taking place with a specialized battle system and the use of a system that increases your power through a form of points.

Sure, what you say is the definition, but the connotation of RPGs is what they are in video games." - dtewi

Around the Network
Intrinsic said:

If we are to be honest though.... sony has pretty much remained constant with their output all generation. Contrary to what most think.

 

  • 2013 - Killzone, Knack (2)
  • 2014 - Driveclub, Infamous (2)
  • 2015 - BloodBorne, The Order, Until Dawn (3)
  • 2016 - The last Guardian, Uncharted 4 (2)
  • 2017 - GT Sport, Gravity Rush 2, Horizon, Knack 2 (4)
  • 2018 - Detroit, GOW, Spiderman (3)   
I didnt add Remakes, Remasters, PSN only games, Published exclusives (eg NiOH), VR games and the annual MLB games. 
So yeah, sony kinda releases an average of 3 major games a year.
I think what he"s saying is that he would prefer they have only 2 releases a year where each game is selling like 10M copies than have 3 where only one sells like 10M copies and the other two sell like 5M each
And I don think we have any reason to doubt what kinda games sony makes or supports. They have 4 generations of ding that under their belt..... and even stuck with their guns when everyone was saying single player is dead...

 

Spider-Man, Detroit, Bloodborne, The Order 1886 and Until Dawn aren't from Sony's worldwide studios , some of those studios have even advocated their move to multiplatform development, and the company that made Driveclub was shut down. The fact that so many of Sony's big games are not from their worldwide studios is why I mentioned it as a counter-argument against some of my own concerns, but ultimately we ARE talking about Sony's own studios. If we're talking about the output from Sony's own studios I can't say that the first half of the Playstation 4's life was very impressive, which is why I'm a tad worried.   A lot of those games listed aren't just "niche" either but not very well received by their audience. I think it says a lot for example that you're listing games like The Order, but then say that contrary to popular belief Sony's output has been consistent. There's a reason that belief is popular. The conflict of interest I see in the statement is that, mass market appeal and quality games aren't necessarily the same thing. And if game development for Sony's studios is going to get even longer with more money backing it? I think there's a possibility we'll see more and more a push for mass market appeal and not just creativity and unique quality. Now, obviously Sony does publish a lot of big games, and I guess you can also include their sports games as important releases. But overall I wouldn't, partially because those games can be played elsewhere and the publishing can change region from region (for example Sony owns a lot of exclusive publishing rights in Japan), and also because I just am not interested in sports games (power to people who are though and it is a legitimate point in favor of Sony). I also don't think any year on that list is generally impressive until maybe 2016 (you forgot Ratchet & Clank). 

I can get behind what you're saying and I even kind of said it myself. The IP that Sony own/uses is more important than just the studios themselves. But, I don't know if Sony can rely on a lot of those same companies again. Games are taking longer and are requiring more money to make, and instead of making more quality games of a smaller-scale, we're seeing the going all in on massive projects. And that's why a lot of studios are barely making two games this generation (and outright wouldn't if not for cross-gen releases). And now that might get even slower? That sounds impressive at first, two games per studio a generation, wow! But keep in mind someone like Bend only get off on the technicality of the Vita, Sucker Punch get off because they are releasing their second game really late (probably cross-gen), Santa Monica is only making one game, Guerilla is only making two because the first game was a launch exclusive (and they reused their engine), Media Molecule is only making two games again because the Vita is technically part of this generation, etc etc. Sony games already take a lonnnnnng time from announcement to release. And I have to wonder if the removal of a portable will actually lessen the output, like would Media Molecule even make it to two games this generation had the Vita not existed? Or Bend? I don't think so. Yes that staff would be re-allocated to those bigger projects but still those projects took a long time to develop and I don't think it would make up for it. Naughty Dog and Japan Studio are basically the only studios consistently making games. And their VR studios too ... I guess ... 

I realized that my problem isn't really the "niche" games, rather, I would really like a focus on AAA small-scale titles (or to ditch the rather ambiguous "AAA" mantra, unique well emphasized games). And I think it's unfortunate that aside from maybe direct sequels (I could actually see GOW5 and Horizon 2 releasing pretty close to PS5's first year or two), everything may take even longer next gen. 



iron_megalith said:
Doesn't streaming games suffer from input lag or have they fixed that?

I certainly wouldn't want it.

Its not even possible to fix. 

If you will notice it though thats another matter. But genres (fighting games) or FPS games that are best played at 60fps will suffer it the most.



AngryLittleAlchemist said:

Spider-Man, Detroit, Bloodborne, The Order 1886 and Until Dawn aren't from Sony's worldwide studios , some of those studios have even advocated their move to multiplatform development, and the company that made Driveclub was shut down. The fact that so many of Sony's big games are not from their worldwide studios is why I mentioned it as a counter-argument against some of my own concerns, but ultimately we ARE talking about Sony's own studios. If we're talking about the output from Sony's own studios I can't say that the first half of the Playstation 4's life was very impressive, which is why I'm a tad worried.   A lot of those games listed aren't just "niche" either but not very well received by their audience. I think it says a lot for example that you're listing games like The Order, but then say that contrary to popular belief Sony's output has been consistent. There's a reason that belief is popular. The conflict of interest I see in the statement is that, mass market appeal and quality games aren't necessarily the same thing. And if game development for Sony's studios is going to get even longer with more money backing it? I think there's a possibility we'll see more and more a push for mass market appeal and not just creativity and unique quality. Now, obviously Sony does publish a lot of big games, and I guess you can also include their sports games as important releases. But overall I wouldn't, partially because those games can be played elsewhere and the publishing can change region from region (for example Sony owns a lot of exclusive publishing rights in Japan), and also because I just am not interested in sports games (power to people who are though and it is a legitimate point in favor of Sony). I also don't think any year on that list is generally impressive until maybe 2016 (you forgot Ratchet & Clank). 

I can get behind what you're saying and I even kind of said it myself. The IP that Sony own/uses is more important than just the studios themselves. But, I don't know if Sony can rely on a lot of those same companies again. Games are taking longer and are requiring more money to make, and instead of making more quality games of a smaller-scale, we're seeing the going all in on massive projects. And that's why a lot of studios are barely making two games this generation (and outright wouldn't if not for cross-gen releases). And now that might get even slower? That sounds impressive at first, two games per studio a generation, wow! But keep in mind someone like Bend only get off on the technicality of the Vita, Sucker Punch get off because they are releasing their second game really late (probably cross-gen), Santa Monica is only making one game, Guerilla is only making two because the first game was a launch exclusive (and they reused their engine), Media Molecule is only making two games again because the Vita is technically part of this generation, etc etc. Sony games already take a lonnnnnng time from announcement to release. And I have to wonder if the removal of a portable will actually lessen the output, like would Media Molecule even make it to two games this generation had the Vita not existed? Or Bend? I don't think so. Yes that staff would be re-allocated to those bigger projects but still those projects took a long time to develop and I don't think it would make up for it. Naughty Dog and Japan Studio are basically the only studios consistently making games. And their VR studios too ... I guess ... 

I realized that my problem isn't really the "niche" games, rather, I would really like a focus on AAA small-scale titles (or to ditch the rather ambiguous "AAA" mantra, unique well emphasized games). And I think it's unfortunate that aside from maybe direct sequels (I could actually see GOW5 and Horizon 2 releasing pretty close to PS5's first year or two), everything may take even longer next gen. 

They don't have to. The will make new partnerships. Its what they have always done.



Intrinsic said:

They don't have to. The will make new partnerships. Its what they have always done.

Fair enough, but game development in general is taking longer. And like I already said, we were mainly talking about their own studios. So I don't find this a be-all-end-all argument. 

That being said, I was mostly just talking about the possible troubles that could come out of it. For all we know Playstation 5 will be the best era for Playstation exclusives. That's what I always hope for whenever I think about next gen, even if it's unrealistic. Plus the article does hint at some possible studio purchases, and people always tend to forget that Sony has been expanding studios and even creating new ones this gen. 



sonys-shawn-layden-wants-fewer-bigger-playstation


Id rather have less smaller games. A lot fewer. About 50% fewer. That nobody would actually notice.



Hunting Season is done...